It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine
Just as Bob Dylan doesn't need a weatherman to tell him which way the wind is blowing, I don't need a newsman to tell me if I've been deceived, especially 15 years after the event.
That is, I don't know what happened to "the passengers". Neither you nor the government can prove that any passengers boarded. In this case you cannot prove that AA77 hit the building, and the bulk of the evidence available contradicts that claim. The "passengers" may be nothing more than actors in an elaborate play.
Exactly what happened to them does not change the fact that a great deception was pulled off that day. You must not yet realize that you too were deceived, but I do know I was deceived.
originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: charlyv
Isn't that the same lamp ballast we had pics of years ago (subject of some discussion and disagreement at the time) ?
It does actually say AA and provides a serial number as well, flying in the face of those who claim those things don't exist
There is nothing unusual with what I have heard or seen. I don't observe anything that raises concern or questions with what is in this data except for Minetas testimony. I have not seen or heard anything that supports the FAA or military knowing enough info to inform the PEOC where Cheney and Mineta were.
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: D8Tee
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: pale5218
Thank you for your hard work and great responses. Just remember, some people don't understand the truth movement will do and say anything to stay relevant. The truth movement will post anything on YouTube that will generate likes and notoriety. The 9/11 conspiracies are more about faith than truth at this point.
What do they gain from it?
I see it as an insult to the people who lost their lives that day.
Last I heard AE911 turned over half a million dollars a year out of which Richard Gage paid himself eighty five thousand a year.
originally posted by: D8Tee
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: D8Tee
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: pale5218
Thank you for your hard work and great responses. Just remember, some people don't understand the truth movement will do and say anything to stay relevant. The truth movement will post anything on YouTube that will generate likes and notoriety. The 9/11 conspiracies are more about faith than truth at this point.
What do they gain from it?
I see it as an insult to the people who lost their lives that day.
Last I heard AE911 turned over half a million dollars a year out of which Richard Gage paid himself eighty five thousand a year.
Figures...
Another cult...
Easy money, fleece the sheep...
originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine
Sorry, I missed that you wanted my theory.
My theory is that certain elements within the Israeli government, for exact reasons unbeknownst to me, wanted to attack the US, and had sufficient influence within that government, such as Dov Zakheim and other dual citizens, to plan and execute this attack. Again, I can only speculate about their true motivations and goals, but certainly war in the middle east and the subsequent destabilization in the area was one of the goals.
Christopher Bollyn has done much research about this, and I have read both his books on the subject. By way of his own writing and research, we know that Transtech Control Ltd is an Israeli company with important contracts with major airports in the US, including several involved in 911.
The work of Eastman, Flocco, Durham, Schwarz and E.P. Heidner also helps explain another probable reason for the attacks, and they involved manipulations of government issued securities, and Office Of Naval Intelligence was involved in certain investigations, and that was the part of the pentagon that was attacked.
originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine
Yes, commercial airliners were involved that day, or at least had airliner paint jobs on them, because I knew a guy who accidentally saw one the morning of.
Yes airliners were part of the story, to be sure. One of the funnier parts was that the passenger manifests were initially incomplete, but later edited for "accuracy".
Trouble is what transport category aircraft the public saw, the one hitting the south tower, was a done, not an airliner.
originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: pale5218
pale5218, I do feel your confusion, and I understand it.
It's difficult to switch from trust to doubt.
Do realize that there are so many indicators for a false flag operation on a never before seen scale, that you have to throw your unconditional trust in your superiors overboard, and start thinking from another angle of incidence, based on what you have read online over the past years, regarding clear false flag indicators. You should start with this :
If we are being bamboozled on 9/11/2001, then I, pale5218, have to expect, in my neck of the woods too (FAA, NORAD and so on), some very sophisticated bending of data by people in key positions who created years of delay tactics before they reluctantly FOIA freed, bit by little bit, f.ex. that military conference information, which they heavily redacted first.
Do read page 145, especially these 2 italic sentences :
The original transcription was incomplete. The pages between the red and green flags (pp169-192) reflect the previously non-transcribed portion.
Page 169 holds the "DDO : FAA reports UAL93 is down" message.
Page 193 holds the "NORAD : we have a single E-3 AWACS on location over D.C."
This italics is military repair-speak for : Damn! We lost some important things! Let's fill it in the way WE like it.
The entire transcription was redone by USD(I) staff in conjunction with Joint Staff because there were many inaccuracies in the original.
This italics is military repair-speak for : Damn! What we saw we didn't like, so we rewrote the damn thing ourselves until we DID like it.
USD(I) = Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. Joint Staff = All top Brass.
We may assume that the report of an aircraft that crashed in the Mall side of the Pentagon at 09:38 came already from the FAA, over that different telephone line and was relayed to the DDO that way. They knew it first through their control tower at Reagan Int Airport who had direct sight to the crash site.
--Page 170 : we have these 2 lines to confirm that the FAA at last was connected directly into the conference call, just after UAL93 crashed in Shanksville :
NMCC: FAA, this is the NMCC are you in the conference?
FAA: The FAA is here.
Conclusion : the FAA was connected to the military its telephone conference call, however, up till the crash of UAL93, only through a second separate line, apart from all the others and they were only briefed and probed probably by just one military person.
Ask around who that person was...
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander
Nothing that looks like a crashed airliner? Haven't seen many airliners then have you? I have no problems finding 757 wheel hubs, RB-211 engine chambers, APU access doors, landing gear struts.. etc in the photos at the Pentagon.
Dennis Cimino : Many discrepancies existed with that Flight Data Recorder record and the N.T.S.B. recreation. First, the final flight path of the plane the government says was flown, does NOT MATCH this record. This is not an assertion. This is a fact.
Second, the FDR itself was found `twice' at the Pentagon. Now for those of you who are unfamiliar with the actual location of the unit on the American Boeing 757 aircraft, it is in the tail of the plane to preserve it for as long as possible as most planes do not crash `tail first' into anything even if the government claims the box can quit without provocation or reason, six seconds before impact with anything. The unit was found both at the entry hole, and deep in the building, underneath more or less `intact' pilot seats. This is a bit problematic in the sense that the box itself has insufficient mass to penetrate the building on it's own without help after the severe deceleration of the plane as it struck the heavily reinforced `Catcher's Mit' outer wall with the Kevlar jacketing and, furthermore, how did it get found `twice' when only ONE flight data recorder exists on this plane?
What is even a better question, is how did the data in the crash protected memory module get downloaded from the crash protected solid state memory a full DAY before the discovery of the unit on the premises? That's right from the time stamp on the data given to us by the N.T.S.B. Now I know that you're thinking; "oh, someone forgot to set the time on the system that downloaded the data then, obviously."
Well, unfortunately there is a very precise process for setting the derivation bench system to take that data from a crash system and download it, and part of that process means you cross check the time the system says it is at. And most assuredly, there are many many other safeguards that are done to ensure that the data is not written to. Unfortunately for this data record set, it was written to. And that was not accidental.
The reason we know this, is that the only way data in the file header or preamble could be erased or reset to `zeroes' is that the requisite jumper wire required on the bench setup that would be used to dump the CPM or crash protected memory data from the recovered CPM module, had to be in place when it would have been both not normally there at all and an intentional `addition' by someone, and second, the bench unit used to talk to or communicate with the CPM module would not have any AIRCRAFT ID or FLEET ID data loaded into it as a NOT FOR FLIGHT unit, and upon connection with the never ever ever in place jumper wire EXCEPT FOR INTENT TO WRITE operations which would be prohibited by any reasonable data extraction protocols for a crash unit, the jumper had to be there to ERASE these two critical links to the plane itself that would not otherwise be blank. On this unit's FDR data, both fields are inexplicably `blank' or zero'd out.
On bootstrap, the FDR does a BIT TEST or built in test function. Part of this BIT test is to validate the header / preamble data in the front of the file in the non-compressed portion of the CPM memory data, against the FDR UNIT's own ROM values for AC ID and FLEET ID. In the case these do not match on bootstrap, the FDR sends a `FDR FAIL' or command priority message to both EICAS flight displays in the cockpit. Furthermore, the pre-download checklist used by ANY agency downloading CPM memory module data stipulates that the requisite PIN JUMPERS to enable a CPM module write operation be verified ABSENT or NOT IN PLACE to prevent accidental record modification or data erasure. The only way the AC ID and FLEET ID data could be zero'd out on this box is that the jumper on the bench unit used to extract the data, was, in fact, there. That was the LAST linkage of that file to the airplane known as N644AA, other than serial numbers the F.B.I. and N.T.S.B. repeatedly refuse to provide to us under very specially and properly written F.O.I.A. requests. In any case, if this data was somehow erased or zero'd out by some technician before that aircraft took off, the unit would have failed BIT on power up on the airplane's essential bus, and that is a `no go' situation. Only a not for flight unit would write `zero's to that header and preamble data, and only a NOT FOR FLIGHT unit would ignore the BIT failure due to masking in the BIT ERROR MAP of the unit. In all likelihood, on this particular airplane, the FDR would have been a Sunstrand model 700 FDR, versus the L-3 Model 2100 unit, based on data from other aircraft in the production string. Are we to believe that this machine got the L-3 unit and the sister ships produced on the line got the others by accident? I don't think that's too very realistic, although it is possible. An FDR FAIL message is a "no push-back" for any Part 23 airplane, prohibiting flight.